Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[Mishrak]

OK Mishrak. First before I reply can you please tell me what your name mean?

It doesn't mean anything.

First of all, aerodynmics

We're not talking about a time trial on a flat or even a solo MTT. We're talking about accelerating away from Alberto Contador like he's a novice climber. All while from a position that he couldn't be possibly putting out max effort. Wind is not as much a factor in the high mountains and even if it were, the aerodynamic difference of being seated is definitely not enough to accelerate away in such a fashion that has never been seen before.

You're trolling if you think Lance won because of his cadence. And poorly at that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'd need a physiologist to confirm, but my understanding is as follows:

If badzilla is affecting Froome's performance, you might think, logically, that as soon as it's cured, he can ride stronger, but I do not think that is necessarily the case.

Let's look at a doping example: testosterone.

Just taking testosterone alone will not make you stronger. You have to train to get stronger. The process is:

1. overload
2. recover
3. supercompensation --> getting fitter and stronger

If you only train as hard and as often as you did before taking testosterone, you're not going to improve any quicker, as the overload will be the same. Yes, you have better recovery, but you didn't stress your body more, so the greater recovery is not going to help any. With testosterone you recover quicker, so you can train as hard, but more often. ie the recovery has increased, therefore you can increase the overload, leading to a greater supercompensation. You get fitter and stronger, more quickly.

Now Froome is anti-doped with Bilharzia. Not only is his ability to overload reduced, but so too, apparently, is his recovery. His performances pre-Vuelta 2011, various interviews and biography all confirm his inability to recover.

If Froome can only overload like a Cat 1 rider, then he will only ride like a Cat 1 rider. He spends most of his pro life riding like a Cat 1 rider - not a top level pro.

As soon as the Bilharzia is cured, he can now

1. overload his body like a protour (PT) rider
2. recover like a PT rider
3. have the supercompensation of a PT rider

but this process takes time. He hasn't been overloading like a PT rider at all, nor recovering like one, since he turned pro.

It should take some time - up to a year or more - once the Bilharzia has been cured, to reach his "genetic potential".

You'd expect to see some improvement, over time, but in 7 weeks he went from Cat 1 domestique to world beater.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It doesn't mean anything.


We're not talking about a time trial on a flat or even a solo MTT. We're talking about accelerating away from Alberto Contador like he's a novice climber. All while from a position that he couldn't be possibly putting out max effort. Wind is not as much a factor in the high mountains and even if it were, the aerodynamic difference of being seated is definitely not enough to accelerate away in such a fashion that has never been seen before.

You're trolling if you think Lance won because of his cadence. And poorly at that.

The power component due to speed - even at 30km/hr, is paltry compared to the power component due to gain in elevation when it comes to climbing.

Along the flat the speed component is essentially 100% of the power.

Uphill, it's more like 10%, from memory.

Drafting helps, coz let's face it, 1% is useful. But aerodynamics of sitting vs standing is almost irrelevant when you take into consideration the ability to engage significantly different and rested muscle groups, while resting other muscle groups in the process.

It's marginal gain theatre.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

It doesn't mean anything.


We're not talking about a time trial on a flat or even a solo MTT. We're talking about accelerating away from Alberto Contador like he's a novice climber. All while from a position that he couldn't be possibly putting out max effort. Wind is not as much a factor in the high mountains and even if it were, the aerodynamic difference of being seated is definitely not enough to accelerate away in such a fashion that has never been seen before.

You're trolling if you think Lance won because of his cadence. And poorly at that.

You're arguing with someone who signed up for an account 5 years ago and is only posting now. This might not be as productive a dialog as you think.

John Swanson

 

[bewildered]

OK Mr. Hog and Mr Flanders. I want to apologize for my bad english earlier I had wine but now I have nap. Lets get off of derail of thread with VAM of Lance and get back to this interview. Ok.

Here is what I think. The interesting part is when Michele Coond interrupt and run the interview. This remind me of the part of the Feris Bueller movie when Feris say when his friend have a first girl she would run him or something like that. Look at Froom and look at Michele. Froom probably just have playboy mag before her. Any doubt who runs that whole relationship? When Froom go to the bathroom at night he put his foot in the toilet and pee on his leg so it makes no noise to splach in the toilet to wake her up I bet.

So other than that this interview is believable. First he make simple mistake about timeline of Lance and Patani. So what? I make mistake about VAM when I look at imposter youtube video.

His belief that sitting down is more arrodynamic than standing up? Who can argue that? Why this is being debated? This is common knowledge so there is nothign there. If he can sit down and then pedal like nuclear eagbeater then he has high VAM. He remind me FLoyd Marweather with punching bag.

Then there is balzilla. This disease rob energy and such. This is like training at altitude with tent. So, when he gets cured it is like superman. He body is trained at less energy then he is cured it is like getting a double shot of nitroous oxide in his carburater. So his meteor rise to the top of the peloton is very perdictable. So couple the arrow position of sitting down with high cadence like Lance, with training with deficient blood do to ballzilla then cure then this is predictable. Chris Froom is the best.

So this thread goes on for many pages and this is stupid. End thread.

Can you provide sources for the bold parts please? Again surely there would have been a passport issue upon cure if what you say is correct. There wasn't.

 

[logical cranium]

You're arguing with someone who signed up for an account 5 years ago and is only posting now. This might not be as productive a dialog as you think.

John Swanson

I posted when I first sign up but I had personal problems then I went away for awhile. That does not make my point any less valid just becuase of thread count. If you think training at deficiency then having defieciency go away is of no benefit then science is not cool to you.

 

[Fzotrlool]

It doesn't mean anything.


We're not talking about a time trial on a flat or even a solo MTT. We're talking about accelerating away from Alberto Contador like he's a novice climber. All while from a position that he couldn't be possibly putting out max effort. Wind is not as much a factor in the high mountains and even if it were, the aerodynamic difference of being seated is definitely not enough to accelerate away in such a fashion that has never been seen before.

You're trolling if you think Lance won because of his cadence. And poorly at that.

 

[logical cranium]

Can you provide sources for the bold parts please? Again surely there would have been a passport issue upon cure if what you say is correct. There wasn't.

Thewhole forum talks about how passport is bs, now passport is supposed to point this out? Excuse me while i tend to my whiplash. Is passport bs or is it not?

 

[DucSti]

it seems clear froome is lying here, but i'm curious as to why...
while i can see why froome would hide his dealings with, say, leinders, why would he downplay his collaboration with kerrison? kerrison's reputation is not really tainted, is it?

Leinders - apparently he was part of investigation of doping practices conducted by the Dutch ADA after he - well officially left Sky..then what ???
Did he retire ? Hard to believe as he was the only Doctor being able to cure saddle sores and skin rashes

 

[Mishrak]

Hahaha I know it's a trap.

Still fun to poke the trolls sometimes.

Michelle, is that you?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Hahaha I know it's a trap.

Still fun to poke the trolls sometimes.

Michelle, is that you?

lol
good avi for MC

 

[Fzotrlool]

Hahaha I know it's a trap.

Still fun to poke the trolls sometimes.

Michelle, is that you?

He reminds me a little of Michelle's mother. Maybe it's her.

 

[mewmewmew13]

OK Mr. Hog and Mr Flanders. I want to apologize for my bad english earlier I had wine but now I have nap. Lets get off of derail of thread with VAM of Lance and get back to this interview. Ok.

Here is what I think. The interesting part is when Michele Coond interrupt and run the interview. This remind me of the part of the Feris Bueller movie when Feris say when his friend have a first girl she would run him or something like that. Look at Froom and look at Michele. Froom probably just have playboy mag before her. Any doubt who runs that whole relationship? When Froom go to the bathroom at night he put his foot in the toilet and pee on his leg so it makes no noise to splach in the toilet to wake her up I bet.

So other than that this interview is believable. First he make simple mistake about timeline of Lance and Patani. So what? I make mistake about VAM when I look at imposter youtube video.

His belief that sitting down is more arrodynamic than standing up? Who can argue that? Why this is being debated? This is common knowledge so there is nothign there. If he can sit down and then pedal like nuclear eagbeater then he has high VAM. He remind me FLoyd Marweather with punching bag.

Then there is balzilla. This disease rob energy and such. This is like training at altitude with tent. So, when he gets cured it is like superman. He body is trained at less energy then he is cured it is like getting a double shot of nitroous oxide in his carburater. So his meteor rise to the top of the peloton is very perdictable. So couple the arrow position of sitting down with high cadence like Lance, with training with deficient blood do to ballzilla then cure then this is predictable. Chris Froom is the best.

So this thread goes on for many pages and this is stupid. End thread.

Just catching up here...
this is good

 

[red_flanders]

The question for me is why? Why attempt to separate Kerrison?

I don't know. I have long since stopped trying to figure out the why, as it gets in the way of the more simple question, is someone lying or telling the truth. Since I can't guess at motivations, I simply react to what I can see in front of me.

In this case body-language would have been the tell, but since that's not there, I don't know what the real story is here.

The interview had this overall tone that Sky don't really know what they are doing. And all of the advancements have been because of The Dawg natural instinct to do things differently, Michele's diet program and Bobby Julich along with the Chunge x 2.

The references to the road bike set up, lack of interest in finding Badzhilla, dismissal of the Kerrison program, not really knowing Leinders, Brailsford's ineptness, giving him the wrong roles in the team etc. you get the feeling there's not a lot of "Team Sky" about the Dawg. He's a one man show with a lady and a bit of Bobby Julich.

We've all been laughing about the efficacy of "marginal gains" long enough that it's been clear that it's BS. I'm not surprised to hear that for Froome it doesn't matter.

Everything about his rise to prominence–the suddenness, the surprise of his own team, the fight with Wiggins, all screams "on my own" to me and always has. So it doesn't surprise me that he comes off that way.

My distinct impression is that he tagged along on Bradley's protected coat-tails and then went rogue when he figured out he was stronger.

 

[red_flanders]

Every word is particular to itself, no?

Very clearly it is two people not getting their stories straight - note the fact that Froome immediately corrects Counde when she says he didn't work with Kerrison until 'this year' - he corrects her to say until Julich left (which is the year before).

But why would they set out to lie about that?

No idea. Don't care much, it's window-dressing to me.

 

[SeriousSam]

Wait, so Froome's ascendency to Grand Tour Cycling Godhood hasn't even been aided by Sky's advanced scientific training masterminded by kerrison? It's just normal run of the mill training with the occasional extra training where he turns off the power meter and doesn't tell anybody about it?

I wonder what Froome could do if put on the Wiggins program.

 

[AcademyCC]

On Froome not giving any Kerrison credit.

I reckon its as simple as Wiggo got more/all of the attention from him when he arrived and Froome still holds a grudge over that.

Brailsford must of been headbutting the wall reading that bit lol

 

[mudbone]

has this quote been explored yet? it was the one that really stuck out to me contradiction-wise. Does anyone else remember the interview immediately after Ventoux where Froome said he had done no special training on 'sitting sprints'? i believe it was a filmed interview, probably press conference... i recall he changed that narrative later, but not in this explicit detail.

PK: The thing that amazed me was the way you left Contador - you rode away from him without getting out of the saddle.

CF: Yeah.

PK: I asked a lot of people in the sport and they had never seen that before.

CF: I've been working on that a lot in the wind tunnel - seated accelerations. I've seen the drag co-efficient go straight up as soon as you get out of the saddle, and I find it's a lot more sustainable to do that versus standing up and sprinting, but it depends obviously on the climb.

 

[logical cranium]

has this quote been explored yet? it was the one that really stuck out to me contradiction-wise. Does anyone else remember the interview immediately after Ventoux where Froome said he had done no special training on 'sitting sprints'? i believe it was a filmed interview, probably press conference... i recall he changed that narrative later, but not in this explicit detail.

I explain this earlier do you not believe less wind resistance when seated? Why not standing in time trial? I can expand if you wish on the subject since I have studied it along with affact of deprived blood nourishing to create great cyclist when cured.

 

[red_flanders]

has this quote been explored yet? it was the one that really stuck out to me contradiction-wise. Does anyone else remember the interview immediately after Ventoux where Froome said he had done no special training on 'sitting sprints'? i believe it was a filmed interview, probably press conference... i recall he changed that narrative later, but not in this explicit detail.

Didn't he say he'd done no wind tunnel training as well? Or did he later update that?

Whatever the case, absolute BS answer. Oh sure, riding away from Contador whilst in the saddle is just a matter of doing "sitting sprint" training. That'll do it.

As if that remotely answers the question. Ridiculous. Why not just say "Hey, I was that much stronger than he was on that day." That's the only reasonable answer. There is no reasonable explanation of "how" he was that much stronger.

 

[Mishrak]

Every time I see or hear them talk about wind tunnel training, or lowering their seat posts or altitude training as the reason why they're so successful, I just get really confused. I mean those resources are available to all teams. It's like they're saying "Sky is the only one with a wind tunnel and all these other pathetic loser teams don't have them, that's why we're better." It's just like attributing anything to cadence or "training harder". Talent, I'll buy. Tactics, I'll buy. "Had a good day" I'll buy. But marginal gains? Everyone can do what Sky does to have "marginal gains", but not everyone accelerates away from elite level climbers in their saddle because of it.

 

[Benotti69]

Every word is particular to itself, no?

Very clearly it is two people not getting their stories straight - note the fact that Froome immediately corrects Counde when she says he didn't work with Kerrison until 'this year' - he corrects her to say until Julich left (which is the year before).

But why would they set out to lie about that?

When people have stuff to hide they lie. When they are not very good at it they are easily caught out.

Froome and Cound are telling lies, that is evident. Why? well he is doping and they are trying to hide that with the lies, coupled with other agendas they may have like a team move, it then becomes very hard to keep the story straight....

 

[RownhamHill]

When people have stuff to hide they lie. When they are not very good at it they are easily caught out.

Froome and Cound are telling lies, that is evident. Why? well he is doping and they are trying to hide that with the lies, coupled with other agendas they may have like a team move, it then becomes very hard to keep the story straight....

I just don't buy that at all for that particular exchange. Kimmage asks a question, Froome answers, Cohe's clarifies he's talking in the past tense, and Froome corrects Counde that it was last year as well as this.

It read like a completely normal conversation to me. Kimmage didn't even get the chance to question the 'never' claim before they voluntarily clarified it themselves.

 

[keeponrollin]

The power component due to speed - even at 30km/hr, is paltry compared to the power component due to gain in elevation when it comes to climbing.

Along the flat the speed component is essentially 100% of the power.

Uphill, it's more like 10%, from memory.

Drafting helps, coz let's face it, 1% is useful. But aerodynamics of sitting vs standing is almost irrelevant when you take into consideration the ability to engage significantly different and rested muscle groups, while resting other muscle groups in the process.

It's marginal gain theatre.

And for the marginal gain of a slightly reduced aerodynamic profile, there's a corresponding marginal loss, because you lose mechanical advantage by not standing in the pedals, & thus you're not getting the full effect of potential energy in your pedal stroke.

 

[keeponrollin]

I just don't buy that at all for that particular exchange. Kimmage asks a question, Froome answers, Cohe's clarifies he's talking in the past tense, and Froome corrects Counde that it was last year as well as this.

It read like a completely normal conversation to me. Kimmage didn't even get the chance to question the 'never' claim before they voluntarily clarified it themselves.

I kinda agree with you. I'm not sure if we're making a mountain out of a molehill over this one quote. I can imagine two different deliveries of the same words, & in one, its very suspicious, & the other wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Its difficult to interpret without actually seeing the body language & the timing.

If as soon as asked the question, Froome immediately kind of snaps, that he never worked with Kerrison; then that would raise my interest. On the other hand, if he paused for a few seconds, & appears to think about it, before saying that he never worked with him, that would give the impression that it wasn't important, & he actually had a think about it before giving an honest answer, versus appearing to have a prepared line denying that he ever worked with someone.

There's a limit to what you can get from the written word, & that's why it would be nice to get PK's perspective, & I suspect we'll hear more before the tour.